cREATION! God or Big Bang? Questions for people....

[Assassin X]

Since I try to avoid these boards, for obvious "conflicting" reasons I got some questions....

This concerns god being real and the "big bang". Well everyone says theres no god because BIG BANG created the universe. Well.....

Who created the big bang? If you have an answer for that then....

What was before the big bang? If you have an answer for that then....

What was before that thing?

The way I look at it is no matter what someone says you can only go so far with far fetched ideas on "The universe this the universe that" before it sounds either to beyond imagination OR it sounds like the universe is so intelligent in knowing what to do that someone had to create it that way!

Hence, God. I could care if people don't believe about what Jesus did hear on earth, or when or where or what it says in the bible. I don't care about anything ON earth really... well somewhat. I am talking about things that science can't explain.

How can this WHOLE universe with its unlimited amount of compilcated and complex things that no one can begin to imagine be here? Something with a infinite knowledge would have to create it!

From giant galaxies down to stars and planets in them, down to oceans and land, down to people and animals, down to insects and microbes, down to the atom. Then youj could get into how things work like something simple like water freezing or something massivly complex like a human body and its every little 100th of an inch filled with an infinite amount of complex working glory. And to think thats how everything is! No mindless "universe" creates that. Something wth knowledge put it all together!. I don't know maybe its just me but to say God doesn't exist and some magical explosion made things work sound silly. Explosions certainly don't make any changes in my life currently.

Which leads me back to my Big Bad questions. Even if you want to believe in the big bang, something had to create it, and something had to create that thing and so on and so forth. Something intelligent.

[Chuna88]

Well, I have a theory to creation. You know we have like little atoms and electrons and stuff. What if the solar system is like an atom that have been charged with energy, and what if the universe is like a element/compound falling apart like a nuclear reaction thingy. Its a wide place out there...

[General Seph]

i belive darwin came up with the creation theroy that everything must have a creator. Yes bug bang created unviverse created by atoms etc but also if god created that who created god if god wasnt created that goes against the creation theroy. Also i think enstein and hawkins said the universe would collapse on itself what could cause time to ravel back then start all over again but this cant happen for some reason as the universe cannot do that everytime also something to do with paradoxs and timetravel.

[DontBeAfraid]

lol.... You are kind of stupid Ass.X .. But you are asking questions so its a start.

I find it odd how you decide to accept one impossible concept over another.

[nrj]

Well everyone says theres no god because BIG BANG created the universe. Well.....

Who created the big bang? If you have an answer for that then....

What was before the big bang? If you have an answer for that then....

What was before that thing?Well everyone says Big Bang never happened, because GOD created the universe. Well...

Who created god? If you have answer for that then...

What was before god? If you have an answer for that then...

What was before that thing?

It's a bitch, ain't it?



How can this WHOLE universe with its unlimited amount of compilcated and complex things that no one can begin to imagine be here? Something with a infinite knowledge would have to create it! Either that, or NO ONE created it, since infinite knowledge, omnipotence AND benovelence is, IMHO, impossible.


Which leads me back to my Big Bad questions. Even if you want to believe in the big bang, something had to create it, and something had to create that thing and so on and so forth. Something intelligent. And someone had to create that intellect, and that, and that, and that, and that...

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Assassin X and thank-you for offering your questions,

Since I try to avoid these boards, for obvious "conflicting" reasons I got some questions....

This concerns god being real and the "big bang". Well everyone says theres no god because BIG BANG created the universe. Well.....

Who created the big bang? If you have an answer for that then....

Thermodynamics clearly shows us that work can not be done without the input of energy and that energy has to exist for it to come into play. It is not my intention to eliminate the big bang theory but to combine it with an understanding of our physical world to present a much larger view.

Our physical world presents a clear picture of the cyclical nature of life around us, from birth to death and disintegration but life does not begin with the beginning of one life, nor end with the end of one life but is a cycle were no beginning nor end are visible.

The Big Bang presents a clear birthing process and a beginning to a formative process, which we are all a part of.

Which presents another question, Why was this process started?


What was before the big bang? If you have an answer for that then....

disintegration and destruction!


What was before that thing?

A Big Bang!


The way I look at it is no matter what someone says you can only go so far with far fetched ideas on "The universe this the universe that" before it sounds either to beyond imagination OR it sounds like the universe is so intelligent in knowing what to do that someone had to create it that way!

This is were we see the amalgamation of science and theology, that clear evidence and logic can be used to begin to understand our role in this universe.


Hence, God. I could care if people don't believe about what Jesus did hear on earth, or when or where or what it says in the bible. I don't care about anything ON earth really... well somewhat. I am talking about things that science can't explain.

Science does have the ability to explain these things but humanity has to be willing to examine the evidence. We can see things drop to the ground but only if we are willing to examine and understand the force of gravity can we begin to have true knowledge.


How can this WHOLE universe with its unlimited amount of compilcated and complex things that no one can begin to imagine be here? Something with a infinite knowledge would have to create it!

When we make something the complexity of our knowledge and understanding is clearly reflected in that which we produce.

What is the purpose of our creation?


From giant galaxies down to stars and planets in them, down to oceans and land, down to people and animals, down to insects and microbes, down to the atom. Then youj could get into how things work like something simple like water freezing or something massivly complex like a human body and its every little 100th of an inch filled with an infinite amount of complex working glory. And to think thats how everything is! No mindless "universe" creates that. Something wth knowledge put it all together!. I don't know maybe its just me but to say God doesn't exist and some magical explosion made things work sound silly. Explosions certainly don't make any changes in my life currently.

An explosion is the end of one form and the beginning of a whole knew form, such as fusion or fission.


Which leads me back to my Big Bad questions. Even if you want to believe in the big bang, something had to create it, and something had to create that thing and so on and so forth. Something intelligent.

Knowledge is something that has always been handed down, inspiration is a taking in process and not a magical or mythical experience. It has a source and through science we can all have a better understanding what that source is.

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Assassin, how the heck can you develop a chain of logic that asks "What came before that?" - which is valid - and then somehow conclude that there must be a God? The VERY logic that YOU used to conclude that God exists precludes that you ask the question "Who created God?" How can you NOT ask this question after having typed out that first post?

[Assassin X]

I already know this is one of those "Endless debate posts that goes nowhere" things so I'll reply to it lol.

There is nothing before God. He just existed. He is an ultimate being with the power to turn nothing into something. Its just like certain things don't mean anything to him like time, nothingness....etc. Probably because for instance before the universe there was nothing and he decided to create something.

On earth we don't understand some things. Like how can there be "nothing" if there is an "end" of the universe out there. Or how God can exist but people say he was the first thing ever. We just have crappy brains when you think about it, we don't really understand crap. So even if you were just to let go of the "god doesn't exist" thing for one second and ponder him being alive and the first "thing" to ever exist but never "created" and he has always just been "there"....it just doesn't make sense for our mere little mortal brains.

Like I said it just doesn't make sense. So by asking me to explain it would mean I would have to have Gods knowledge on how he exists. So I can't anwser really. But I can ask questions coming from the "Gods real so where does <insert thing come from>?" nature

[Jupiter]

What was before the big bang? What was before that? It's very complex, but logic tells me that there was absolutely nothing except perhaps potential, and there was absolutely nothing to comprehend (cannot be assessed and not an entity), so on this line of thinking time was non-existent. It's extremely difficult to comprehend nothing!

[Cartesiantheater]

Look, one way or another you have to accept some sort of infinity or some sort of creation ex nihilo. There's no way around it. I chose to go with thermodynamics and believe that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed..."
That being said, has any one heard of the Darwinistic Universe Theory? (I can't find anything on it on the net, so I gave it that name; and my explanation is off of the top of my hat, so bear with me)

Basically, look at the anthropic principle: "The universe is the way it is because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be hear to observe it..." or something to that effect...
Creationists try to say that that is proof that God exists... However, look at this other interpretation:

What if there are MANY universes being created all the time. And what if new universes are formed from black holes in other universe...
Now think of this; most random evolving universes would simply disintegrate in the first few seconds simply because there are MANY different ways for the laws of physics to form, but FEW ways for the laws of physics to form in a way that will allow a workable, long lived universe.
Now, those FEW universes that happen to have the correct laws of physics to last long, also tend to be ones that allow black holes... and since black holes are the "means of reproduction" according to this hypothesis, than in "time" you will have more and more universes that produce black holes, simply because those that do NOT are "eliminated" ala Darwinian Natural Selection...
Now, incidently, the "laws of physics" that allow for the creation of black holes are the very same ones that allow for the creation of life...
And hence, we are here only because Natural Selection has "favored" universes that have the laws of physics that "reproduce" with black holes, and those ones are also the ones that support life...

Or something like that... feel free to clean this up... it's totally off of memory (again, I couldn't find anything on the net...)

But the point is, even with an infinite or ex nihilo universe, you STILL are NOT forced to conclude that God exists... there are other EQUALLY non-absurd NON-THEIST explanations...

[Assassin X]

Don't get me wrong, before I got into loving politics and military stuff I was a "uber" science nerd and still love it but when you explain it like that (or when anyone does) it all sounds like a big long lengthy ball of nothing trying to explain something that science really can't because they just don't want to admit maybe everything is here for a reason and all this complex stuff that all works together perfectly (you get my drift) was made by an actualy being rather then some cosmic "nothingness" that science can't even agree on what to call it, explain it, name it, do with it, about it...etc.

I am not a christian that watches for instance the discovery channel and when they have something on dinosaurs and they go "And recently scientists think after the meteor hit earth a new form of <insert whatever> formed and made <insert whatever>". I don't think "Oh boy, meteors and crap they can't possibly know about. I don't think like most christians do. I always take in everything, obviously I don't believe alot of it but I always try and make sense of it and if its something that sounds realistic or something that only "science" comes up with.

"Well you see, anicent crystals came out of a giant hole in space that formed when invisble gases of a dino fart came up and hit the moon and formed tornado. That tornado formed that invisble hole. The crystals..."

I mean science sometimes sounds so silly its like "Riiighhtt..... a dino fart did it". Thats why the thign with the big bang before and after never make sense to me. More so the fact that something that isn't intelligent mananged to make infinitly complex things on a planet and also make a whole entire universe while making sure it all works.

:wonders if the dino fart was the big bang:

[Cartesiantheater]

Don't get me wrong, before I got into loving politics and military stuff I was a "uber" science nerd and still love it but when you explain it like that (or when anyone does) it all sounds like a big long lengthy ball of nothing trying to explain something that science really can't because they just don't want to admit maybe everything is here for a reason and all this complex stuff that all works together perfectly (you get my drift) was made by an actualy being rather then some cosmic "nothingness" that science can't even agree on what to call it, explain it, name it, do with it, about it...etc.

But I just gave a perfectly reasonable way that the universe could be complex WITHOUT the need for a mystical creator entity. Did you not understand the idea? Do you even understand the natural selection aspect of biological evolution? (not trying to insult you; but you said that the explanation sounded like a "ball of nothing" even though it is founded on the very logical principle of natural selection, {for example, ever wonder why most NBA players are tall? because those that aren't get weeded out in the selection process... ever wonder why Ivy league students are great test takers? because bad test takers get weeded out on the ACT and SAT's...}
...hense I wonder if you understood it...)

The only thing we can work with is the material world. We can't understand God, so why try to explain the universe in terms we can't understand? Why add an extra aspect to the mystery that we don't need to? It's hard enough to understand the universe. Why make it harder by needlessly adding God to the equation?

[Sammy56]

it all sounds like a big long lengthy ball of nothing trying to explain something that science really can't because they just don't want to admit maybe everything is here for a reason and all this complex stuff that all works together perfectly (you get my drift) was made by an actualy being rather then some cosmic "nothingness" that science can't even agree on what to call it, explain it, name it, do with it, about it...etc. Science is not trying to disprove the existance of God. It's trying to explain the universe. Actually, if you believe that God created the universe through the laws of physics and all that science stuff, science is actually explaining God.

Oh, and about science sounding silly, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. A few months ago, I would have told you Calculus was insane but now that I understand it I can obviously tell I was wrong.

[Assassin X]

I got what your saying, I apologize for not making that clear. I just mean it seems like science always trys to explain everything instead of just saying "Some things can't be explained". Kinda what you said.

Like, I know more "christian stuff", as a christian were told that some things that we don't understand like "How is God all powerful?", "Why do things happen the way they do?"....etc we should not think about because its impossible to know the answer. We will know everything when we die. I find that awsome, of course I still question being a stubborn person I am.

But thats where science comes in, they can't let some things go and admit there is a god. Can science explain why everything is so complex, why it works so perfectly all together and how it all just happened to be this way all in what seems like a perfect universe (once again youg et the drift)? Sceince tries but in the end there really is no answer, well God knows the answer. Alternativly you could say "God" is the answer because he made everything this way and he made everything period.



The only thing we can work with is the material world. We can't understand God, so why try to explain the universe in terms we can't understand? Why add an extra aspect to the mystery that we don't need to? It's hard enough to understand the universe. Why make it harder by needlessly adding God to the equation?

So are you saying don't add God because he isn't real? Or don't add God because its to hard too?

Thats what it comes down too to me. I except lots of scientific answers. Obviously most of it explains lots of things. But when you get into some things like "How the universe began" then you get that seperation of "God or Big Bang". And if you just say "God" created the heavens and the earth then its easier and it makes sense because he is God, he can do anything beyond even we can imagine but if you let science do it, it becomes a complicated task of lengthy proportions of explanations, figures, this and that.

You would think scientists, people that are thinkers would see the universe at the beggining of time and say,

Scientist John: "Who made this?....hmmm. God whi has knowledge of everything that we can't even imagine. Or a giant explosion that somehow knew to create stars, planets, asteroids, meteors, black holes...etc and then knew how to make them all work like the things they are."

Scientist Tom: "I'd say the explosion! It was a big bang!"

Scientist John: "The explosion?!?!? It doesn't even think, it just exploded! How did it even create things with workable enviroments and gravity...etc?"

Scientist Tom: "I guess your right. Why would God do it! Hes only the smatest being in the universe that can create it all instantly! GO BIG BANG!"

Anyways....You got to admit big bang theory is a little out there when in the end its just a giant explosion. And when you look at God and then the complexity of everything its easy to see which created the universe. Unintelligent explosion or God.

[Psychotic-Eye]

Why can't everything just be accident? after the big bang the stars the planets and even us. Can be accident's nothing had to come from god. Why does there have to be god if we don't understand something fully. All science is trying to do is explain what we don't understand through evidence observations and not by going we don't understand this it must have been done by a higher power

[jeffweeder]

Why can't everything just be accident?

Accidents leave a mess, -yet all living things have an incredible sense of what to do and how to do it, to survive.; being encouraged by the fact they have everthing they need at ther're disposal, so if they take this instinctive course, they'll suceed in surviving.- given that the enviroment remains constant.- Yet the most sophisticated being- being Man, seems to be the only one whose lost and is doing any real damage to the enviroment.-The smarter they are, the more damage gets done- Doesnt seem right- We've fallen.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

So are you saying don't add God because he isn't real? Or don't add God because its to hard too?

I'd say, "Don't add God, because it doesn't really answer the question." The problem is that a lot of believers enter God into the equation, and then they toss rationality out of the window. Whereas anyone who's spent any time studying science realizes that if there is a God, he must be a very rational being. Whether he's the underlying force behind the laws, the simple fact of the matter is that those laws still exist, and I feel ignoring those laws is an insult to the one who wrote them.


But when you get into some things like "How the universe began" then you get that seperation of "God or Big Bang". And if you just say "God" created the heavens and the earth then its easier and it makes sense because he is God, he can do anything beyond even we can imagine but if you let science do it, it becomes a complicated task of lengthy proportions of explanations, figures, this and that.

Well, first of all, God and the Big Bang aren't necessarily contradictory theories.

Having said that, I should point out that back when mankind was still coming to grips with its ability to seek knowledge, a lot of the things we understand now were in the same boat. Back then, you could say, "Sure you could explain how a bird flies by studying avian physiology and aerodynamics, but why don't you just say, 'God allows them to stay afloat'?"

The bones in a birds wing are very complicated. Laws of aerodynamics are very complicated. That doesn't make them less true, or make their practical applications less pertinent. If we had just accepted that God allowed birds to fly, we'd never have been able to invent the aeroplane. Something to think about.


all living things have an incredible sense of what to do and how to do it, to survive.; being encouraged by the fact they have everthing they need at ther're disposal, so if they take this instinctive course, they'll suceed in surviving

This could easily be explained by evolution and survival of the fittest - which is basically the view of happy accidents continuing onward, and unfortunate accidents grinding to a halt, due entirely to outside laws placed upon them. Order arises from chaos.

[Sir_Lipton]

The ones creating christianity and wrote the bible, "catholic church", have accepted the big bang and evolution theory. They say that the bible was directed to the people of that time that didnt know about the universe.

Except that they did before the church itself...

Hovewer the once writing the bible still claim that the reason easter is celebrated 2500 years BEFORE JEsus resurection is cause of the devil going back in time doing it. That is still their statement today.

And still there is no proof of jesus existence, personally i belive he did exist, but they have still not proven it in archellogical and historical evidence.

[Assassin X]

Once again I find it, well, even unimanginable that there was an "accident" and something so complex came from an accident. I mean id you were a person that goes by odds what are the odds that some this universe were to be created, then create our perfect planet, then (according to non-christians) get hit by a asteroid, then create humans...etc? I mean what is that a 1 with a infinite amount of 0's after it? Is that even a number? So like 1 in a (><) chance? Mind boggiling.

I realize what everyones saying about thigns like Does a bird fly because god made it that way? But science can tell you why. And yeah technically both ways are right.

God created everything. He created birds for instance and science (and other things) are just able to explain how his creation can fly!

Now that I think about it, what if Big Bang is actually correct and God creating is correct too? Well think about it. God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. Would't that mean there was a explosion of stuff from no where? That would make sense and then all of the sudden there was this complex universe where the nothingness was! Although I guess the only flaw in this is the age diffrence.

But but things say there was nothing before (well we say God), then there was suddenly a universe (sort of on the Big Bang thing).

[nrj]

Once again I find it, well, even unimanginable that there was an "accident" and something so complex came from an accident. Unless the laws of physics allready were there when the explosion happened, since then the world would be logical. Complexity doesn't matter at all.
I mean id you were a person that goes by odds what are the odds that some this universe were to be created, then create our perfect planet, then (according to non-christians) get hit by a asteroid, then create humans...etc? Our planet IS NOT perfect. On a planet that's PERFECT for life, there wouldn't be any diseases or natural disasters. Do you really understand PERFECT?
I mean what is that a 1 with a infinite amount of 0's after it? Is that even a number? So like 1 in a (><) chance? Mind boggiling. Well, you could find out if you DO know how these physical laws works and how often these conditions arises. Until that, you don't know, so you can't calculate the odds.


Now that I think about it, what if Big Bang is actually correct and God creating is correct too? Well think about it. God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. Would't that mean there was a explosion of stuff from no where? First law of thermodynamics: nothing can come from nothing.


But but things say there was nothing before (well we say God), then there was suddenly a universe (sort of on the Big Bang thing). Well, the physical laws existed before, since an explosion DOES have to be triggered somehow.

[Chuna88]

Why can't everything just be accident? after the big bang the stars the planets and even us. Can be accident's nothing had to come from god. Why does there have to be god if we don't understand something fully. All science is trying to do is explain what we don't understand through evidence observations and not by going we don't understand this it must have been done by a higher power

Yeah but science is evil. And believing in god either they exist or not is good. We discovered drugs that are supposed to safe people, but it seems to make more people's life even more miserable than it is, in form of addictness, money, people captured by police or struggle for space. Look at children nowadays and back then. The change of belief has changed the way they lived and reacted to their problems. So I rather choose my child to trust god before discovering the dark cruel world.

[Sir_Lipton]

I agree we can stop and think WHY the universe was created, why are we here. And why did religion come out of the Big Bang?

Then again we can sk why god? Why is it soo important for "god" to create the enitire universe so that we humans can be living like mother theresa all our lifes or sufer for ethernity in hell.

And of all things sciense cant give an answer to, why do you people go to a book written by Roman noblemens? If you claim that Moses wrothe the bible before the old testament was written. And that those who wrote the new testament wherent people and mostly Roman noblemen like Leveticus. Then you have no conseption of time an place.

Of course, Moses wrote about Jesus Christ and Leveticus millenias before their existence!!! Do you people know WHY i belive Jesus existed? Cause it says so in the holy jewish Torah, the life and living guide for the jews.

Most Jews would tell you that the "messiah" they are expecting will bring world peace as well as "universal justice" for both, Jews and Gentiles. But that is not thrue, according to Judaism Gentiles will be the slaves of the jews when messias come. THIS IS WATH THE BIBLE IS BASED ON! the jews messiahs that will make the jews the elite one day and turning all non jews to their slaves. All nations will be speaking as one under "Israel".

"Pesikta Rabbati," which in its chapter 36, paragraph 8, "This is autentic jewish beliefs, even to this day they still keep this traditions."

"Be'ota sha'a mavchik Hakadosh Baruch Hu oro shel Melech Hamashiach veshel Yisrael"

[translation:] "In that hour the Holy One, Blessed be He will brighten the light of the King Messiah and of Israel"

"Ve-holchim kulam le'oro shel Melech Hamashiach veshel Yisrael"

[translation:] "And all of them will walk in the light of the King Messiah and of Israel"

"Shene-emar: 've-halchu goyim le'orech, um'lachim le-noga zarchech'"

[translation:] "As it is said: 'And the nations will walk in Your light, and kings at the brightness of your rising."

"U-va'im um'lachachim afar tachat raglav shel Melech Hamashiach."

[translation:] And they shall come and lick the dust that is under the feet of the King Messiah."

"Shene-emar: 'va-afar raglaich yelachechu.'"

[translation:] "As it is said: '[the inhabitants of the islands shall come] and will lick the dust of his feet.'"

"U-va'im kulam ve-noflim al p'neihem lifnei Mashiach ve-lifnei Yisrael"

[translation:] "And they all shall come and fall before the Messiah and before Israel"

"Ve-omrim: 'Nihyeh lecha u-leYisrael la-avadim."

[translation:] "Saying: 'We will be slaves to you and to Israel.'"

"Ve-chol echad miYisrael alpayim u-shmone me'ot avadim yih'yu lo,"

[translation:] "And each and every one from Israel will have two thousand and eight-hundred slaves,"

"Shene-emar: 'Bayamim ha-hema, asher yachaziku asarah anashim mikol leshonot ha-goyim,"

[translation:] "As it is said: 'In those days it shall come to pass that ten men from all the languages of the nations shall come,"

"Ve-hecheziku bich'naf ish Yehudi,"

[translation:] "and will take hold of the corner (of the garment) of a Jew,"

"lemor: 'nelcha imachem, ki shamanu Elokim imachem.'"

[translation:] "Saying: 'We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'"

Alright the last one... Its todays christians Zionists like American and Brittish christians supportin the jews for being gods chosen people. And They let the jews controll them.

This is how JEsus comes in, the jews dont realize he was the messias all along. Ensuring the "rebuilding of the temple in Israel".

Jews are a very proud and strong people, after all this years of seperation, their faith in their religion and messiah that will make them lord of earth, and non jews their slaves, has finally come true.

[grendel 13]

Our planet IS NOT perfect. On a planet that's PERFECT for life, there wouldn't be any diseases or natural disasters. .

just because these things exist doesn't mean it's not perfect. if there wasn't any diseases, the population would be explosive, and i think you would agree that an over populated planet would be far from perfect. also natural disasters, we call the, disasters only because, usually, us humans where in the way. forest fires, hurricanes, volcanoes, all these things contribute to diversity of life and in some cases even help life flourish and expand. all things have there place, even bad things. i really think that existance, and all that that entails, is perfect, it is a perfect balance of all things.

[nrj]

just because these things exist doesn't mean it's not perfect. if there wasn't any diseases, the population would be explosive, and i think you would agree that an over populated planet would be far from perfect. Thus, the laws of the universe doesn't have anything remotely perfect. Therefore, nothing is and can be a perfect place to live in, because death is everywhere.
i really think that existance, and all that that entails, is perfect, it is a perfect balance of all things. Perfect balance? For us men, maybe, but just because the Earth can harbor life doesn't mean it's alone to harbor life.

[grendel 13]

Thus, the laws of the universe doesn't have anything remotely perfect. Therefore, nothing is and can be a perfect place to live in, because death is everywhere. Perfect balance? For us men, maybe, but just because the Earth can harbor life doesn't mean it's alone to harbor life.

again, i don't think something is imperfect just because death exists. i think that the human definition of perfect is flawed. or at least i think the human understanding of the word is flawed. we must take into acount that there are other things besides ourselves. a perfect life for humans might mean a horrible life for something else, therefore nothing can ever be perfect, by our definition of the word.

i'm not following you as far as earth harboring life alone, i believe that there are an infinite number of places in the universe that can and do harbor life. that's why i said ALL EXISTANCE. i think that when you look at EVERYTHING, one can see a perfect balance.

[Cartesiantheater]

So are you saying don't add God because he isn't real? Or don't add God because its to hard too?
No. I'm saying that if you're trying to understand the universe, you can only understand it in terms of the universe. Alright, this, in a nutshell, is my argument against dragging God into the equation (it's very similar to Philfoehle's)

Ever heard of the "God of the Gaps" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#The_.22God-of-the-gaps_argument.22_in_modern_usage) fallacy? By just saying that "God did it," you stifle scientific inquiry. That is why it took soooo many years for human knowledge to take off. People were too afraid to question dogma- because they felt that new ideas threatened God. The world's knowledge didn't start skyrocketing until God was REMOVED from science... keep in mind that many if not ALL of the first scientists were theists- however, they realized the importance of giving material explanations for material phenomena. It wasn't until these people invented the "non-god" method of explanation that human knowledge began to take off.
And that's why I'm saying what I'm saying. Just saying that "God did it" interferes with inquiry.




You would think scientists, people that are thinkers would see the universe at the beggining of time and say,

Scientist John: "Who made this?....hmmm. God whi has knowledge of everything that we can't even imagine. Or a giant explosion that somehow knew to create stars, planets, asteroids, meteors, black holes...etc and then knew how to make them all work like the things they are."

Scientist Tom: "I'd say the explosion! It was a big bang!"

Scientist John: "The explosion?!?!? It doesn't even think, it just exploded! How did it even create things with workable enviroments and gravity...etc?"

Scientist Tom: "I guess your right. Why would God do it! Hes only the smatest being in the universe that can create it all instantly! GO BIG BANG!"

Anyways....You got to admit big bang theory is a little out there when in the end its just a giant explosion. And when you look at God and then the complexity of everything its easy to see which created the universe. Unintelligent explosion or God.

Yeah, but what exactly does "God did it" actually explain? Do you think we would have come to understand the laws of physics as we do today if people just said, "There's no reason to ask any further questions; God did it- that's it!" ?

The big bang ISN'T just a theory about a "mindless explosion..." Big Bang theories all line up with nearly every other branch of physics, including Einstein's relativity. It's not as simple as you're trying to make it out. All of this is connected; and the ideas that predict the Big Bang theory also solve MANY other problems in physics. It isn't on the same level as "God did it." It explains FAR FAR more...IN DETAIL, whilst "God did it" explains almost nothing...and has almost NO practical value... There...

[Godsgifttomankind]

No. I'm saying that if you're trying to understand the universe, you can only understand it in terms of the universe. Alright, this, in a nutshell, is my argument against dragging God into the equation (it's very similar to Philfoehle's)

When you understand that God is an active agent within the universe, just the same as gravity; then it is not possible to study the universe without dragging God into the equation.


Ever heard of the "God of the Gaps" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#The_.22God-of-the-gaps_argument.22_in_modern_usage) fallacy? By just saying that "God did it," you stifle scientific inquiry. That is why it took soooo many years for human knowledge to take off. People were too afraid to question dogma- because they felt that new ideas threatened God. The world's knowledge didn't start skyrocketing until God was REMOVED from science... keep in mind that many if not ALL of the first scientists were theists- however, they realized the importance of giving material explanations for material phenomena. It wasn't until these people invented the "non-god" method of explanation that human knowledge began to take off.
And that's why I'm saying what I'm saying. Just saying that "God did it" interferes with inquiry.

While agreeing with your point that Dogma has been both the prime stifler of scientific understanding as well as man's knowledge of God. The world's knowledge started to skyrocket when ignorance was replaced by truth. All of the great scientist or great thinkers at no point chose a 'non-god' method of explanation, they were ardent servants of God that chose to examine the physical evidence that was before them in an attempt to understand their creator.

And Yes, any type of simplistic answer to a question does little to encourage people to grasp the truth of it.



Yeah, but what exactly does "God did it" actually explain? Do you think we would have come to understand the laws of physics as we do today if people just said, "There's no reason to ask any further questions; God did it- that's it!" ?

God in the equation does not present a barrier to understanding, nor is it an excuse for anyone to stop seeking for answers. The truth is that it presents more questions and expands many answers.


The big bang ISN'T just a theory about a "mindless explosion..." Big Bang theories all line up with nearly every other branch of physics, including Einstein's relativity. It's not as simple as you're trying to make it out. All of this is connected; and the ideas that predict the Big Bang theory also solve MANY other problems in physics. It isn't on the same level as "God did it." It explains FAR FAR more...IN DETAIL, whilst "God did it" explains almost nothing...and has almost NO practical value... There...

Let us truly examine the practical value of God within our equations and see were we find ourselves.

[Cartesiantheater]

First let me say that I wish Sir_Bitchton wasn't banned... I wanted to verbally abuse that idiot racist bastard... that being said...


Yeah, but your concept of God isn't one that I'm having a problem with. I pretty much agree with your post- in this sense:

If God exists and God created the universe, than understanding the universe leads to understanding more of God.

Or if you say that God is A PART of the universe, well, then understanding physics is really theology... sort of...

As far as the "non-god" approach, what I meant was that science began to skyrocket when scientists didn't settle for explanations of this type, "God did it." They chose to dig deeper in their understanding of the physical world. That's pretty much all I'm saying when it comes to the "non-god" comment.

Next part:

Ok, yes, the early scientists were all theists. HOWEVER! Many of them were considered HERETICS because they questioned the ESTABLISHED IDEA of God.

But regardless, they did not use God as an explanation for physical phenomena in the sense that the earlier concepts of God did. God was thought of as a sort of "Clock-winder-upper..."-

but the point I am making is if you want to understand the physical world, you have to study it within the limits of the physical. Any concept of God added to that is philosophy. Bringing in miraculous explanations only ENRICHES what you discover about the physical world- in all likelihood it won't actually add to our physical understanding of how the physical world works. Take, Young Earth Creationism, for instance. It is based on a total circular argument. The Earth is young, they say, because the Bible says it is... rather than because the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE points one way or another. "God-sciences" have the answer before they look at the evidence, and that's why they are flawed.
The "Practical Atheist approach," on the other hand, makes theories based on what is observed... that is, this approach looks at evidence FIRST, and then explains it.

Not saying that God must not exist, or that belief in God is useless. Just that beliefs are only useful in science in that they lead to hunches, which then lead to testing. If you're not testing something, or basing an explanation off of a test, than you are not doing science... and at that point you are discussing theology...

[Godsgifttomankind]

Thank-you and I do like were you are going with this,

Ok, yes, the early scientists were all theists. HOWEVER! Many of them were considered HERETICS because they questioned the ESTABLISHED IDEA of God.

I would like to take this one step further in stating that all of these theists took their inspiration directly from God. These truths were revealed to them in order that the ignorance that passed for understanding within the established system could be brought to not.


But regardless, they did not use God as an explanation for physical phenomena in the sense that the earlier concepts of God did. God was thought of as a sort of "Clock-winder-upper..."-

When we examine the manuscripts from each we find that their understanding was that God was in fact an active force within the universe.


but the point I am making is if you want to understand the physical world, you have to study it within the limits of the physical. Any concept of God added to that is philosophy. Bringing in miraculous explanations only ENRICHES what you discover about the physical world- in all likelihood it won't actually add to our physical understanding of how the physical world works. Take, Young Earth Creationism, for instance. It is based on a total circular argument. The Earth is young, they say, because the Bible says it is... rather than because the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE points one way or another. "God-sciences" have the answer before they look at the evidence, and that's why they are flawed.
The "Practical Atheist approach," on the other hand, makes theories based on what is observed... that is, this approach looks at evidence FIRST, and then explains it.

I think that now you have hit the nail on the head, miracles have no place within the realm of serious examination. They are nothing more than a distraction from the evidence that has been placed before us, talking physics or theology.


Not saying that God must not exist, or that belief in God is useless. Just that beliefs are only useful in science in that they lead to hunches, which then lead to testing. If you're not testing something, or basing an explanation off of a test, than you are not doing science... and at that point you are discussing theology...

This is were it is important to replace the word theology with the word mythology, for if you can not test it and prove it to be then it is pure imagination based upon some ones vain imaginings.

Theology is the study of God based upon proofs and evidence and is a scientific approach to God just as Biology is to the Biosphere.

What you are challenging here are not 'God Scientists' but in fact 'Myth Scientists', individuals that are incapable of opening their eyes to all of the evidence that is before them and adamantly adhere to things that even Adam did not believe. The Great scientist that he was.

[lazserus]

I think the biggest problem is that people don't truly understand the Big Bang and its process. There was no actual explosion, but more like a highly energetic expansion from the Planck scale (as in a length scale, not energy scale). During the Planck epoch (from 0-10^-43 seconds) and the inflationary period (10^-35 seconds after the Planck epoch) the universe was smooth, uniform and in a high state of order; in other words, the universe had low entropy. This could be taken as a perfect universe due to its equilibrium, uniformity and order. The imperfections are what caused matter to coalesce and form stars, galaxies, and planets. Since entropy increases over time the universe started highly ordered, and as time progressed the universe became much more disordered. One of the most common analogies to explain entropy is using two cups of water. The left cup has ice chips in it and the right cup has no ice. Which would have a higher level of entropy or disorder?

Most would say the ice water would be more disordered, the glass on the right being more uniform and homogeneous. But the reality is that the entropy in the glass with out ice is much greater than the one with ice. This is due to the fact that the ice limits the number of ways the molecules can be arranged. Our universe more closely resembles the glass with no ice, it being homogeneous, isotropic, and containing high entropy.

The Big Bang is supported by substantial observational evidence. To name a few:

Hubble redshift
Cosmic Microwave Background
Abundance of primordial elements
Galactic formation and distribution


Those who don't believe the Big Bang occurred (which would be turning a blind eye to evidence) would probably support the Steady State theory or lower thought standards to plain magic.

So what was before the Big Bang? Nothing. What happened before the Big Bang is pointless and irrelevant. It's pure philosophy or mythology and has absolutely no logical or scientific ground to stand on. There's nothing wrong with asking, but don't expect to get an answer. Science's purpose isn't to necessarily deny the existence of a supernatural intelligent being, but to explain what we see. There are very few things out there that science is unable to explain at the moment. However, that doesn't mean they won't be able to be explained in time. I'm willing to bet majority of the things people think science can't explain can be explained but they either ignore the explanations or are just not aware of them. What people just don't seem to grasp is that science and open minded theology are not mutually exclusive, but can easily walk parallel to eachother.

A few links for those interested in learning more about the Big Bang:
The Big Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)
Big Bang Timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmology)

[Assassin X]

:starts from top:

By just saying that "God did it," you stifle scientific inquiry. That is why it took soooo many years for human knowledge to take off. People were too afraid to question dogma- because they felt that new ideas threatened God. The world's knowledge didn't start skyrocketing until God was REMOVED from science...

Like I said though its great for science to explain everything that god made. Obviously everything can be exlpained. And I guess the "creation" of the universe can be explained to. But the diffrence between christians and scientists are at that very point of explaining it when they do as soon as they explain it they say "This is how it happen so God doesn't exist since obviously it happen on its own". Instead of saying "This is how it happen when God made it". They Unlike other things where they "could" admit God made it, they ignore him on creation of the universe. I guess thats what I am trying to get at.

And as for your second part yeah, but once again saying "God created it like that and know we know how our universe works (for the most part)." would be something they could say. But they ignore him and praise the mindless explosion/enery-expansion(which had to be created by someone).

BTW how can anyone "really" know "what" "it" was? Explosion? Energy expansion? From millions (non christian timeline) of years ago? I know supposedly they have a method but te me its more like a theory that can't be proven. Just like no one can prove aliens exist. BTW I am not asking about the Big Bang, jsut the aprt about the intial "explosion" part. No one was around to say what really happened (well except one person). :P

[db99]

I have always said that i do not believe the creation story because events such as the dinosaurs and big mammals do not link into the creation story. Some aspects of the creation story look true but i do not believe it. The creation does not explain evolution!!

[DontBeAfraid]

Assassin you have to leave everything supernatural out of explanations for natural things.

[lazserus]

BTW how can anyone "really" know "what" "it" was? Explosion? Energy expansion? From millions (non christian timeline) of years ago? I know supposedly they have a method but te me its more like a theory that can't be proven. Just like no one can prove aliens exist. BTW I am not asking about the Big Bang, jsut the aprt about the intial "explosion" part. No one was around to say what really happened (well except one person). :P
Highschool physics could easily rule out the explosion factor. The point I was making is that people just don't really understand what it is. Of course no one was there to observe it, but we've the evidence that we've extrapolated backwards in time and theories explained things long before we were able to see them for ourselves. Unless you really understand even the basic principles of physics (though Big Bang theory does include advanced and applied physics) you will naturally misunderstand the process.

I don't mean offense here, but you apparently don't understand the basic principles of science. When scientists use "proof" they do just as I did, they quote it. Real science is not proof, but substantial evidence and repeated experiments. When someone uses the term [proof] they are meaning [theory]. Theory in itself isn't proof, but is based off repeated experiments. It's not just an imaginative idea some bloke tossed out at random. There's much more behind it than that. A scientific idea that has not been tested is classified as a hypothesis. I may have a high expectation for scientists, but "proof" should never be used in referring to absolutes. Theory is the term and theory is based off experiment and observation. Therefore, what we infer as theory is how we've understood every inch of physics, chemistry, biology, and the natural world.

[Assassin X]

Would it be fair to say then science doesn't admit theres a good simply because they can't humanly figure out how to explain him in scientific terms, like how he "exists", or how he "made" things...etc?

I know I keep making it sound like I don't get what your all talking about, I do and I understand the Big Bang theory, although recently I had heard two different things about how it started (explosion, energy expansion).

It would just be nice if science said "God made everything, we know something with intelligence did (God) and we can't explain this "intelligence" or where its at, but we can explain what it made, when and how."

Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it isn't real. Look at Bush he can't say 3/4s the words in our language (let alone spell them) but he somehow became president!

[DontBeAfraid]

Dont you understand that that is not in the realm of science? It is not prudent for scientists to fill the holes in their knowledge with god.... When yo udo that you quit asking questions and seeking answers.

And no it doesnt sound like you understand the big bang theory or you might realize that explosions ARE energy expansions.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

It would just be nice if science said "God made everything, we know something with intelligence did (God) and we can't explain this "intelligence" or where its at, but we can explain what it made, when and how."

A good scientist doesn't claim to know something until it has been tested carefully and proven through the evidence at hand. God is, by his very nature, untestable and unprovable. To claim it is a scientific fact that God exists is irresponsible pseudoscience.

That doesn't mean you can't be a scientist who believes in God, but spirituality and science are two topics that really don't have much to do with the other.

[Cartesiantheater]

That doesn't mean you can't be a scientist who believes in God, but spirituality and science are two topics that really don't have much to do with the other.
I would say their relationship is like this:

Science can enlighten spirituality... but spirituality can NEVER enlighten science...anyway...

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Philosopher Foelhe and thank-you for your post,

A good scientist doesn't claim to know something until it has been tested carefully and proven through the evidence at hand. God is, by his very nature, untestable and unprovable. To claim it is a scientific fact that God exists is irresponsible pseudoscience.

It would seem that it is time that you came for a visit to my laboratory, were we have clear quantifiable evidence of the existence of God. In order to claim that some thing is pseudo science you would be claiming that any attempt to present evidence would be a matter corrupted evidence and to say that you would have to first prove that the evidence has been corrupted. Irresponsible pseudoscience is closing your eyes and pointing in what ever direction.


That doesn't mean you can't be a scientist who believes in God, but spirituality and science are two topics that really don't have much to do with the other.

These two topics are much closer related than you can begin to imagine.

spirituality is based upon faith and faith is based upon evidence.

Religion is based upon faith that is based upon dogma.

If you do not believe in seeking out the truth you are not a scientist and since God is the manifestation of all truth, what a scientist is seeking is God.


I would say their relationship is like this:

Science can enlighten spirituality... but spirituality can NEVER enlighten science...anyway...

Coming from a purely scientific background and having had God revealed to me and through that enlightenment being shown the truth about many things the two are very much interconnected.

[Cartesiantheater]

If you do not believe in seeking out the truth you are not a scientist and since God is the manifestation of all truth, what a scientist is seeking is God.

I have no problem with this statement. However, what makes a scientist a scientist is the METHOD that he uses to seek truth(or God, if you believe that the ultimate truth is God). A scientist never equates feelings or intuitions with "truth." He only equates observed phenomena or logical necessities as truth, and this leads to two characteristics of science:

1.) What the scientist claims as "truth" will probably be closer to reality than what the non-scientist claims as "truth." (especially considering that due to the nature of science, it progressively moves toward "truth," while simple faith is neither systematic nor an objectively reliable indicator of "truth.")

2.) Because there are certain things that cannot be quantified by their very definition, there are certain concepts that a scientist must LEAVE THE REALM OF SCIENCE in order to investigate. When he is investigating these concepts, he is being a PHILOSOPHER, not a scientist.

There are few good scientists who are not also good philosophers. The two are nearly inseparable. But they ARE DIFFERENT! Just like your heart and lungs are different, performing different functions, but are inseparable. (And yes, a heart and lung are part of a greater whole, and likewise science and philosophy are part of the greater whole of HUMAN THOUGHT, but they are DISTINCT branches of human thought with different purposes, methods, strengths and weaknesses)

Edit- I'll add to this:

Philosophy has the strength of being able to tackle problems that science cannot (for example, the Meaning of Life... which we all know is 42, btw :nerdo: )

Science, although it is limited to what it can discuss, is more accurate on what it does discuss than philosophy is...

Ok, I hope that paints a broad picture of their strengths and weakness...

[Lt.Paint]

People can't say the Big Bang disproves God because the Big Bang is a theory. It is the most accepted theory, but a theory none the less. And a theory can't disprove something until a theory is a fact.

[Cartesiantheater]

People can't say the Big Bang disproves God because the Big Bang is a theory. It is the most accepted theory, but a theory none the less. And a theory can't disprove something until a theory is a fact.

[Edit- forgot the 1st part (in bold) Science can NEVER disprove or prove God... the big bang theory says NOTHING on the question of God's existence... anyway]

Is it really "just a theory?"

Actually, laymen have the wrong definition of a theory. A theory, in science, is either a result of repeated experimentation, the result of observation, or the extrapolation of the results of experimentation and observation.

Theories are NOT the same as hypotheses. (hypotheses are the "educated guesses") Theories are much more concrete than hypotheses. In fact, in science lingo, a theory is as near to "fact" as you can get...


A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena:the theory of relativity.

A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

[Godsgifttomankind]

I have no problem with this statement. However, what makes a scientist a scientist is the METHOD that he uses to seek truth(or God, if you believe that the ultimate truth is God). A scientist never equates feelings or intuitions with "truth." He only equates observed phenomena or logical necessities as truth, and this leads to two characteristics of science:

A Good scientist uses both the five outer senses in balance with the five inner senses to prove that which is clearly visible. Einstein had no way of direct quantification of his theory of Relativity except a though examination of the physical realm in which he lived. He used quantifiable evidence from the seen realm to clearly demonstrate and explain the unseen.


1.) What the scientist claims as "truth" will probably be closer to reality than what the non-scientist claims as "truth." (especially considering that due to the nature of science, it progressively moves toward "truth," while simple faith is neither systematic nor an objectively reliable indicator of "truth.")

CT, it is not my intention to diminish what you are saying but to provide a deeper clarity to the words that you are using. Faith is an action word and is one of the prime requisites of science it is faith in the evidence that other scientists before you have concluded to allow you to further expound upon the subject.


2.) Because there are certain things that cannot be quantified by their very definition, there are certain concepts that a scientist must LEAVE THE REALM OF SCIENCE in order to investigate. When he is investigating these concepts, he is being a PHILOSOPHER, not a scientist.

Again you have obscured the true meaning by implying that a philosopher and a scientist are opposites. The word philosopher means to be a lover of wisdom, which by your definition would mean that a scientist is not a lover of wisdom.

Does this mean that a scientist is a lover of ignorance?


There are few good scientists who are not also good philosophers. The two are nearly inseparable. But they ARE DIFFERENT! Just like your heart and lungs are different, performing different functions, but are inseparable. (And yes, a heart and lung are part of a greater whole, and likewise science and philosophy are part of the greater whole of HUMAN THOUGHT, but they are DISTINCT branches of human thought with different purposes, methods, strengths and weaknesses)

How is it possible to be a good scientist and not a good lover of wisdom?


Philosophy has the strength of being able to tackle problems that science cannot (for example, the Meaning of Life... which we all know is 42, btw :nerdo: )

Obviously you are examining an out of date Guide! :Blbl:


Science, although it is limited to what it can discuss, is more accurate on what it does discuss than philosophy is...

Ok, I hope that paints a broad picture of their strengths and weakness...

I believe that it paints a very clear picture of how twisted our understanding is of the words that we use. We have managed to take something that means on thing and have it mean something quite different.

It reminds me of what happened to the word Baloney, which is a derivative of the latin Bononia which means a good place to create, which is a far cry from how it is used today.

[Cartesiantheater]

one of the prime requisites of science it is faith in the evidence that other scientists before you have concluded to allow you to further expound upon the subject. Yes, but because of the scientific method (including rigorous testing and RECORD KEEPING of tests and results) past work can be figured out, tested, and DUPLICATED from the ground up. All the past knowledge in science can be re-done at the drop of a hat. It really isn't the same kind of faith that faith in God is (at least on an intellectual level)




Again you have obscured the true meaning by implying that a philosopher and a scientist are opposites. The word philosopher means to be a lover of wisdom, which by your definition would mean that a scientist is not a lover of wisdom.
Does this mean that a scientist is a lover of ignorance?
Well, I didn't quite say they were opposites, but I do see a problem in what you're saying. It is not possible IMO, to be a scientist and NOT be a philosopher. Here, you are correct.

HOWEVER, it IS possible to be a philosopher and NOT a scientist.


How is it possible to be a good scientist and not a good lover of wisdom? I find it highly unlikely that a good scientist is not also a philosopher.

HOWEVER, again, it IS possible to be a philosopher and NOT a scientist at the same time. You gave the definition of a philosopher. But HERE is my definition of a scientist:

When studying a certain subject, the scientist will only draw absolute conclusions about what is true about the subject if and only if these conclusions are supported by testing, evidence, and logical necessity. Any conclusions made will come directly from the scientific method. Further, any extrapolations made that are NOT supported directly by observation, testing, and logical necessity will remain classified as hypotheses, and will NOT be considered "truth" by the scientist.

Now, it is possible to do all of the above(scientist), and then form hypotheses about what the purpose of the subject studied is (philosopher) (for example, {puts on the scientist's hat} you could study the physical properties of the big bang, figure out how and when it happened, and then {takes off scientist hat; puts on philosopher's hat} hypothesize that the big bang was in fact the moment when God said, "Let there be light!"). In this case you would be BOTH a scientist and philosopher.

However, it is ALSO possible to only make hypotheses WITHOUT doing any of the things listed in my definition of science (only putting on philosopher's hat- i.e. doesn't TEST). If you only make the hypotheses, and consider them truth WITHOUT the rigorous testing and such shown above, you are ONLY doing philosophy, and you are NOT doing science. Therefore, you are ONLY a philosopher, and you are NOT a scientist.





Obviously you are examining an out of date Guide! :Blbl:
Huh? One of the first things we discussed in philosophy was the meaning of life... What do you mean, here?




I believe that it paints a very clear picture of how twisted our understanding is of the words that we use. We have managed to take something that means on thing and have it mean something quite different.

It reminds me of what happened to the word Baloney, which is a derivative of the latin Bononia which means a good place to create, which is a far cry from how it is used today. I would say that science is the child of philosophy; it brings less ambiguous answers, but in so doing is limited in what questions it can ask. They overlap, but they do not use the same method, and because of this, they cannot both answer the same questions with the same level of accuracy (well, they can answer SOME of the same questions with the same level of accuracy, like things pertaining to mathematics, for example. EDIT- in fact, I would say that mathematics, the most self-consitant form of thought on the planet, is PHILOSOPHY. Since scientists use math, they are philosophers. However, a mathematician can go through his entire career without preforming a physical experiment).


A Good scientist uses both the five outer senses in balance with the five inner senses to prove that which is clearly visible. Einstein had no way of direct quantification of his theory of Relativity except a though examination of the physical realm in which he lived. He used quantifiable evidence from the seen realm to clearly demonstrate and explain the unseen.
That's the point. Einstein had a theory, but he had to TEST it by predicting the bending of light and the orbital pattern of mercury. Philosophers (philosophers who are not also scientists, that is) do NOT preform test (except thought experiments, of course). Philosophy is better suited to studying non-physical things, like thoughts, meaning, and God and such. Science can ONLY study the physical. Again, you can be a scientist and a philosopher; but you can also be a philosopher WITHOUT being a scientist.

So I still say there is a difference. But how about this compromise:

Any good scientist will also be a philosopher. Otherwise his work is meaningless.

Any good philosopher will also be a scientist. Otherwise he really isn't a lover of wisdom (which implies a lover of knowledge- aka science). If a philosopher truly wanted to know as much as he could, he'd be stupid not to educate himself in the scientific method.

Edit- another thing about your last quote on this post, on how God COULD and COULD NOT be studied scientifically. IF there was a way for the actions of God to be predictably measured (and there may very well be, in principle), then God could be subjected to scientific inquiry. However, this all depends on your definition of God (or what God is really like...). If the real God is similar to, say the monotheistic God, or the greek Gods, than his behavior will be erratic and therefore it would be impossible to differentiate his actions from the random actions of the physical universe. And because of this, science CANNOT inquire about him... BUT if God is in fact the universe itself (or, as Scott Adams put it, if God is made of nothing but probability and matter...) than God DOES fall under the umbrella of scientific inquiry... although at this point our technology is not up to the challenge...

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Science can enlighten spirituality... but spirituality can NEVER enlighten science...

Personally, I'd say that science can enlighten spirituality, and spirituality can inspire science. Although I'm gonna be snobbish and point out that religion and spirituality are very different things. (Just to dodge the whole Christians-deny-science-more-than-they-inspire-it argument.)


It would seem that it is time that you came for a visit to my laboratory, were we have clear quantifiable evidence of the existence of God.

No offense meant here, but you'll excuse me if I remain skeptical. We've had a similar conversation before, and I still believe your previously submitted evidence didn't really show anything.


These two topics are much closer related than you can begin to imagine.

I probably shouldn't say they have nothing in common. But confusing the two is a grave mistake. People believed the world was flat for centuries because we trusted religion to take care of science. Cartesiantheater said it better than I could, but while philosophy and science may move in a similar direction, they are different paths.


spirituality is based upon faith and faith is based upon evidence

... No, it isn't. Faith is pretty much defined by its lack of proof - that doesn't necessarily mean lack of evidence, but there's a wide range here. Evidence is in no way, shape or form necessary for faith. It can solidify faith, temper faith, but it's not a necessity.


People can't say the Big Bang disproves God because the Big Bang is a theory.

People can't say the Big Bang disproves God anyway, unless they just can't imagine a god causing one. Which doesn't really make sense.


Again you have obscured the true meaning by implying that a philosopher and a scientist are opposites.

That's a false argument. CT was merely saying that scientists and philosophers have separate realms in which they apply their experience. A detective and a forensic scientist also have separate realms of experience - if you were looking for the potential motive of a murderer, you would not speak to a forensic scientist. That doesn't mean the two jobs can't compliment one another, but it does mean they are separate jobs.


I believe that it paints a very clear picture of how twisted our understanding is of the words that we use. We have managed to take something that means on thing and have it mean something quite different.

I disagree. Again, no offense meant, but I feel your definitions are based more on personal convenience than on real-world meaning.

... And CT, you are kicking ass. Well done, sir!

[SoulReaverKAIN]

it couldn't have come from nothing GOD was and is omnipotent
he is basically an atmosphere. Well what if GOD created the big bang
he was there because he is part of space God is basically that what is the essence of life

[Cartesiantheater]

it couldn't have come from nothing GOD was and is omnipotent
he is basically an atmosphere. Well what if GOD created the big bang
he was there because he is part of space God is basically that what is the essence of life

So why even postulate a God at all? Aren't you basically saying "God is the universe?" Why have any mystical inclination at all? Why not just say, "all there is is matter and energy (the scientific sense of the word), and that is all there ever was and ever will be?"

And then if you want, slap on the "Pantheist" title onto your information section and call it a night? But I see that you are Wiccan.

What do you REALLY believe about God? Are you like the Hindus that claim polytheism but in reality only worship one God who has many thousands of manifestations? (that is, do you claim to worship a diety and then equate that diety with the universe itself- why not just be a practical athiest who has deep respect and awe for this wonderful machine we live in?)


Or do you mean to say that God is separate from the universe, but is the crank that makes it go? Then I'd have to ask how you are different from any of the monotheists who believe something similar (perhaps not necessarily the "big bang"- but certainly a creation moment).

Or, if God is the "arena" in which the universe exists, expands and changes in, why not just say that the "arena" is simply the outer shell of the universe?

I guess what I'm saying is, why not utilize Occum's Razor and cut out the "middle man" from your belief about creation?

I mean, if you're not advicating deism or some form of monotheism, or even a real theism, why ride the fence and violate Aristotle's laws of knowledge by being ambiguous with a definition? (law of contradiction, law of exluded middle: is the universe a God or is it a physical object? it either is God or it is not God- this is similar to the Trinity problem in Christianity. I suppose your God defies logic as well? Which is fine, I guess, or maybe it's all just semantics... but why not just pick a side?)


EDIT - it is possible I misunderstand your belief, as it is worded ambiguously...


**for the record, I list my belief as Pantheism, but I worship no God. The universe simply takes the place of God for me, but it is not some sort of God as the word is defined for me, just so you know.

[SoulReaverKAIN]

I believe god is the universe yes I mean to acknowledge god you dont have to go, to church or anything like that. Creationism has to have God
there is energy and matter and maybe God is an energy source


definantly not a hindu...cause atheists have yet to find out how the universe started and if you ask me just made a theory up but it had no trigger source
did it start by the cosmos but then again how did the cosmos come about

definantly a creation moment

[Havoc Angel]

The question for the beginning can be easily answered: There was no beginning. I belief in infinity and that means, no beginning, no end, but always a source.

And about god: Why humanize something that isn't human at all?

Please, get out of your mind.

[Fisherman]

“Big bang” as we examine this theory closely do not provide any proof from nowhere suddenly appeared billions and billions galaxies and countless stars from nothing. This theory appears the best fish story ever told.


Creation of the Universe

At the beginning of time there was a huge Single Light where the Spirits lived as an undivided Light. The Light decided to have purpose for their existence. Up to now the Light had drifted aimlessly through endless dark space. The Light decided to create a universe and decided the size and the shape of the universe. For this kind of project the Light Spirits had to find the right answer by using very advanced math to solve every aspect of the idea and to make a plan before construction started. Similarly, in the physical world it is no different when engineers decide to build a bridge. Engineers have to find the right answers by using math on the same question and do similar preparations before any construction can commence.

The Light Spirits decided on a very simple design -a ball with five corners from these flat surface patches a ball was constructed to hold all of the galaxies. All these patches were transparent. Every Light Spirit has unlimited source of power and energy and just by visualizing in their mind the energy is directed in the way the Light Spirit wanted. This energy was released from their hands and the Light Spirit that produced this energy had to be very strong in order to hold the galaxies inside the ball. It appeared to me as a huge ball with pentagon patches stitched together (similar to a soccer ball). The Light Spirits constructed the universe was one billion light-years in diameter and the ball was pressurized.

When the Light Spirits finished with the construction of the ball it was then time to create the galaxies. Before the Light Spirits started to create the galaxies, the Light decided to split themselves in many parts to become individual Spirits of Light. The Light separated themselves into 12 billion individual Spirits of Light. Every Light Spirit had chosen the way he likes to be different in his appearance and understanding, in other words every Light Spirit wanted to be unique.

The Light Spirits distributed themselves uniformly throughout the universe. All Light Spirits have power of creativity and every Light Spirit picked a spot in the huge ball to create his own galaxy. The Light Spirit decide the shape of his own galaxy but applied the same principal as the first Being when he created the first galaxy. Before construction started each Light Spirit had to calculate galaxy, such as how the galaxy would look like, how big it would be, and how many arms it would have. The size of the galactic center needed to hold all stars, planets and moons and the rest of the parts of the galaxy.

After all the calculations were completed, each Light Spirit constructed the shape and size of his “horn of plenty” to create his own galaxy, as he wanted. Since every Light Spirit had different understanding, each one of them created a different and unique kind of galaxy. “Horn of plenty” appeared as a vacuum cleaner sucking dark matter and dark energy, which was plentifully in space. When the seed sped up or slowed down the seed rearranged its entire sub-atomic and atomic structures, as each element is different in atomic structure. The seed rearrange the invisible dark matters and dark energy into visible elements in the “horn of plenty”. When enough matter was collected, the matter was compressed until pressure built inside the “horn of plenty” and caused an explosion to occur.

During the explosion, tremendous friction occurred amongst the matter and it became very, very hot. The explosions propel matters forward and divide into a galactic arms and gravity center. After the explosion occurred the matter expanded many times and the galaxy appeared in the universe. It was after the explosion occurred in the galaxy that the law of gravity started to apply. At the same time as the detonation occurred in the “horn,” it gave the galaxy forward motion, orbital motion and pull.

After all the galaxies in the first universe were created I leaned against the ball’s energy field. I looked from outside into the universe and I saw how slowly the sides of the ball curved and it appeared to me as a huge ball similar to a soccer ball. I saw countless number of stars, which reminded me of a Christmas ball filled with snowflakes. In the universe, 12 billion galaxies exploded more or less at the same time, as the galaxies were created at the same time. Then I understood in order to keep all the galaxies together they must be in a defined space and obey the law of gravity. The universe has its own dimensions and defines its own space to hold all galaxies together; otherwise the galaxies would drift far apart from each other in every direction in endless dark space.

The Light Beings realized that these galaxies that were first created were very simple designs. They began creating newer and better galaxies and in no time the universe had no more space for creating new galaxies. The Spirits decided to enlarge the existing universe to four billion light years radius, which gave them more space to create newer galaxies and to find better and more beautiful creations. Again there was not enough space in the universe for the Spirits to express their knowledge, which lead the Spirits to enlarge the universe to 12 billion light years radius. The Spirits started to explore their ability to create new and different dimensions and expanded their knowledge from the basic three-dimensional physical universe. The Spirits wanted to find the limit of their knowledge.

Separation of the Spirits

In beginning of time the Spirits’ world had been a beautiful place where harmony existed everywhere. Then some Spirits started comparing what they had created with others. Tensions soon started between the Spirits in the universe. A decision was made to separate this group from the Light Spirits. This splinter group was called Free Will or the Fallen Spirits. In the beginning when the Light had separated themselves into 12 billion of the Light Spirits, every Spirit had a chance to choose the side where they liked to be. Ten billion Spirits decided to be in the Light and 2 billion Spirits choose to be in Free Will. The Spirits who choose to live in Free Will believed competition is the best way to search for greater knowledge. The Fallen Spirits are the Spirits who wanted to live in Free Will and loved to compete among themselves. These Spirits continued to do whatever they liked to do as they expressed their Free Will.

Two ideas appeared in the Spirit’s world and the Light Spirits and Free Will Spirits decided to conduct an experiment with both ideas. All the Spirits in the universe had the desire to experience Free Will. The Spirits decided to create a world in the most a realistic image of the Spirit’s world. The Spirits decided to conduct the first experiment with Free Will. For this kind experiment the Spirits have to create a planet with living human beings also will be unique in their own mirror image.
The Light Spirits decided to separate themselves from Free Will Spirits and decided to create a new Parallel Universe very similar in the shape and design as the first universe. Only this new universe would be considerably improved and larger than the first universe. The Spirits who chose to be in the Light promised to do only common good for all citizens in the Parallel Universe. This New Universe will be called the Kingdom of Good.

In the middle of the first universe gravitational center was created, to hold all the galaxies together and to allow the galaxies to orbit around the universal gravitational center. As the Light Spirits separated themselves, gravitational center in the universe crumpled. From that time chaos prevailed in the universe. The Fallen Spirits did not have the knowledge to create a new gravitational center in the universe and their knowledge ceased to grow since they separated from the Light Spirits. The Fallen Spirits had to keep their own knowledge secret from other Fallen Spirits, as they believed this was the only way to have an advantage over their adversaries.

In the universe there was harmony and order amongst the galaxies. When the separation of the Light Spirits occurred at the same time there was an absence of the Light balance in the universe started to decay. Dark matter began losing its gravitational pull against the dark energy, which was pushing the galaxies outward. These dark energy forces began to pull apart the universe causing the galaxies to collide with each other. Thousands of galaxies in the universe collided and the explosion tore a large hole in the wall of the ball and the universe was depressurized. The galaxies escaped from the universe though the opening, faster than the speed of light. Today scientists observe the universe and the galaxies that outside and the universe appeared more flat in shape. This helps offer some explanations of a scientific theory the universe will continue to expand forever. In the distant future all galaxies will be very far apart in endless dark space.

The Spirits were curious about the outcome of Free Will and where it would lead creation if each Spirit sees only himself.

[Cartesiantheater]

cause atheists have yet to find out how the universe started and if you ask me just made a theory up but it had no trigger source

Oh, the woes of our science education! Definately not just a "made up" theory.

It all started with electromagnetism. It just so happened that observation and theory required that the speed of electromagnetic waves be independent of the motion of either the source of the waves or any observer watching (regardless of that observer's motion). So, Einstein and his colleagues developed a theory that unified mechanics and electromagnetism.

From there, problems with Newton's theory of gravitation were attacked, but with the previous new discoveries in mind. We owe this one mainly to Einstein. He developed a theory of gravitation that unified the discoveries of electromagnetism and gravitation, but one that was more accurate both theoretically and observationally than Newton's.

The "PROBLEM" was that Einstein's theory predicted an expanding universe. Einstein didn't like this, so he introduced a universal constant that would keep the universe steady for eternity. Unfortunately, observations some years later revealed that Einstein's "original" theory was right- the universe WAS expanding. From there, studying the correct theory and its implications led to the idea that the universe had what appeared to be a beginning of sorts. Later, observation of cosmic radiation that had hitherto been unobservable confirmed the predictions. The big bang theory is a good approximation of what actually happened. The universe appears to have had a beginning, according to theory and observation.

Starting from simple observations of electromagnetic interactions, we derived an entire theory of the universe from its inception to present. Amazingly, this theory (well, really more of a hodgepodge of several theories) is astoundingly in sync with what is observed.






The point of this rant? This definately WAS much much MUCH more than "just made up."

But it does have its limits, leaving plenty of room for speculation:


did it start by the cosmos but then again how did the cosmos come about

definantly a creation moment

Maybe so, but that is where the science aspect of the debate ends.

[Skynet12]

“Big bang” as we examine this theory closely do not provide any proof from nowhere suddenly appeared billions and billions galaxies and countless stars from nothing. This theory appears the best fish story ever told.


Creation of the Universe

At the beginning of time there was a huge Single Light where the Spirits lived as an undivided Light. The Light decided to have purpose for their existence. Up to now the Light had drifted aimlessly through endless dark space. The Light decided to create a universe and decided the size and the shape of the universe. For this kind of project the Light Spirits had to find the right answer by using very advanced math to solve every aspect of the idea and to make a plan before construction started. Similarly, in the physical world it is no different when engineers decide to build a bridge. Engineers have to find the right answers by using math on the same question and do similar preparations before any construction can commence.

The Light Spirits decided on a very simple design -a ball with five corners from these flat surface patches a ball was constructed to hold all of the galaxies. All these patches were transparent. Every Light Spirit has unlimited source of power and energy and just by visualizing in their mind the energy is directed in the way the Light Spirit wanted. This energy was released from their hands and the Light Spirit that produced this energy had to be very strong in order to hold the galaxies inside the ball. It appeared to me as a huge ball with pentagon patches stitched together (similar to a soccer ball). The Light Spirits constructed the universe was one billion light-years in diameter and the ball was pressurized.

When the Light Spirits finished with the construction of the ball it was then time to create the galaxies. Before the Light Spirits started to create the galaxies, the Light decided to split themselves in many parts to become individual Spirits of Light. The Light separated themselves into 12 billion individual Spirits of Light. Every Light Spirit had chosen the way he likes to be different in his appearance and understanding, in other words every Light Spirit wanted to be unique.

The Light Spirits distributed themselves uniformly throughout the universe. All Light Spirits have power of creativity and every Light Spirit picked a spot in the huge ball to create his own galaxy. The Light Spirit decide the shape of his own galaxy but applied the same principal as the first Being when he created the first galaxy. Before construction started each Light Spirit had to calculate galaxy, such as how the galaxy would look like, how big it would be, and how many arms it would have. The size of the galactic center needed to hold all stars, planets and moons and the rest of the parts of the galaxy.

After all the calculations were completed, each Light Spirit constructed the shape and size of his “horn of plenty” to create his own galaxy, as he wanted. Since every Light Spirit had different understanding, each one of them created a different and unique kind of galaxy. “Horn of plenty” appeared as a vacuum cleaner sucking dark matter and dark energy, which was plentifully in space. When the seed sped up or slowed down the seed rearranged its entire sub-atomic and atomic structures, as each element is different in atomic structure. The seed rearrange the invisible dark matters and dark energy into visible elements in the “horn of plenty”. When enough matter was collected, the matter was compressed until pressure built inside the “horn of plenty” and caused an explosion to occur.

During the explosion, tremendous friction occurred amongst the matter and it became very, very hot. The explosions propel matters forward and divide into a galactic arms and gravity center. After the explosion occurred the matter expanded many times and the galaxy appeared in the universe. It was after the explosion occurred in the galaxy that the law of gravity started to apply. At the same time as the detonation occurred in the “horn,” it gave the galaxy forward motion, orbital motion and pull.

After all the galaxies in the first universe were created I leaned against the ball’s energy field. I looked from outside into the universe and I saw how slowly the sides of the ball curved and it appeared to me as a huge ball similar to a soccer ball. I saw countless number of stars, which reminded me of a Christmas ball filled with snowflakes. In the universe, 12 billion galaxies exploded more or less at the same time, as the galaxies were created at the same time. Then I understood in order to keep all the galaxies together they must be in a defined space and obey the law of gravity. The universe has its own dimensions and defines its own space to hold all galaxies together; otherwise the galaxies would drift far apart from each other in every direction in endless dark space.

The Light Beings realized that these galaxies that were first created were very simple designs. They began creating newer and better galaxies and in no time the universe had no more space for creating new galaxies. The Spirits decided to enlarge the existing universe to four billion light years radius, which gave them more space to create newer galaxies and to find better and more beautiful creations. Again there was not enough space in the universe for the Spirits to express their knowledge, which lead the Spirits to enlarge the universe to 12 billion light years radius. The Spirits started to explore their ability to create new and different dimensions and expanded their knowledge from the basic three-dimensional physical universe. The Spirits wanted to find the limit of their knowledge.

Separation of the Spirits

In beginning of time the Spirits’ world had been a beautiful place where harmony existed everywhere. Then some Spirits started comparing what they had created with others. Tensions soon started between the Spirits in the universe. A decision was made to separate this group from the Light Spirits. This splinter group was called Free Will or the Fallen Spirits. In the beginning when the Light had separated themselves into 12 billion of the Light Spirits, every Spirit had a chance to choose the side where they liked to be. Ten billion Spirits decided to be in the Light and 2 billion Spirits choose to be in Free Will. The Spirits who choose to live in Free Will believed competition is the best way to search for greater knowledge. The Fallen Spirits are the Spirits who wanted to live in Free Will and loved to compete among themselves. These Spirits continued to do whatever they liked to do as they expressed their Free Will.

Two ideas appeared in the Spirit’s world and the Light Spirits and Free Will Spirits decided to conduct an experiment with both ideas. All the Spirits in the universe had the desire to experience Free Will. The Spirits decided to create a world in the most a realistic image of the Spirit’s world. The Spirits decided to conduct the first experiment with Free Will. For this kind experiment the Spirits have to create a planet with living human beings also will be unique in their own mirror image.
The Light Spirits decided to separate themselves from Free Will Spirits and decided to create a new Parallel Universe very similar in the shape and design as the first universe. Only this new universe would be considerably improved and larger than the first universe. The Spirits who chose to be in the Light promised to do only common good for all citizens in the Parallel Universe. This New Universe will be called the Kingdom of Good.

In the middle of the first universe gravitational center was created, to hold all the galaxies together and to allow the galaxies to orbit around the universal gravitational center. As the Light Spirits separated themselves, gravitational center in the universe crumpled. From that time chaos prevailed in the universe. The Fallen Spirits did not have the knowledge to create a new gravitational center in the universe and their knowledge ceased to grow since they separated from the Light Spirits. The Fallen Spirits had to keep their own knowledge secret from other Fallen Spirits, as they believed this was the only way to have an advantage over their adversaries.

In the universe there was harmony and order amongst the galaxies. When the separation of the Light Spirits occurred at the same time there was an absence of the Light balance in the universe started to decay. Dark matter began losing its gravitational pull against the dark energy, which was pushing the galaxies outward. These dark energy forces began to pull apart the universe causing the galaxies to collide with each other. Thousands of galaxies in the universe collided and the explosion tore a large hole in the wall of the ball and the universe was depressurized. The galaxies escaped from the universe though the opening, faster than the speed of light. Today scientists observe the universe and the galaxies that outside and the universe appeared more flat in shape. This helps offer some explanations of a scientific theory the universe will continue to expand forever. In the distant future all galaxies will be very far apart in endless dark space.

The Spirits were curious about the outcome of Free Will and where it would lead creation if each Spirit sees only himself.

No Shit?

[Onyx]

Me, personally, I just don't see how a big bang would create what we live on. You can't have a big bang and then boom, there's a tree, theres this or that. If that was the case then we could or should be able to grow trees and create things with the quickness, instead of trying to slowly invent things....you kinda see what I'm trying to say?

[Nu Kua]

You can't have a big bang and then boom, there's a tree, theres this or that.

Can you show us where, in any sort of "big bang" theory presented, it is implied trees were immediately created, or any other life for that matter?
I think you cannot, because that is not what is stated. Very simply stated, the so called 'big bang" initiated a sequence of events from which life developed from, a process that took, and is taking, eons of time...
Insta-Creation of Life out of Nothing is largely the theory of Creationists. No plausible scientific theory or whatnot has ever suggested that emerged suddenly out of nowhere...

[Onyx]

Pointed taken and realized. Your post made me qauickly check out a big bang webpage and I see where I was at fault. Me myself was told of the Insta-Creation process that you speak of. My bad judgment for simply taking it for word instead of checking myself.

[Nu Kua]

It's cool, that happens to the best of us.
I just re-read my post and realized it sounded kind of bitchy.
Sorry about that!
Welcome to AO! :bounce:

[J. Cruise]

Ok so here's a question for those of you that believe "god" created everything.

Now we know that the universe is expanding (science proved that) and we know that the universe is absolutely ginormus! With those being said if there truly is an all powerful and all knowing deity out there, what makes you think that he would waste his time with us? I mean surely if he created us he must have created other things too on different planets in different galaxies, so then you must believe in aliens! Because there's no way that an omnipotent being such as "god" would be happy with just one little experiment on one planet when he made the universe so big! I mean what would be the point of creating all that stuff out there and not doing anything with it? What is the point of pluto (that poor poor "non-planet" at the edge of our solar system) or uranus, or any of the planets... were they failed experiments of "god"? But if they're failed then that would mean "god" isn't all powerful!!! Oh no!!!! I'm just saying, how can you only choose to accept a "fairy tale" that happened a few thousand years ago over what science has shown to be a more realistic example? Oh wait I know the answer to that.... cuz you're a sheeple! lol just saying.. you think the big bang sounds silly, well I think that "god" sounds even more silly! It's like fricken santa claus! lol

[J. Cruise]

Oh and one other thing.... in genesis it says "and god created the heavens and the earth" or something of that effect..... well we've already proven that heaven ain't in space so where did it say that "god created the universe?" lol... so many questions and so few plausible answers! lol